Wht are you equating damage with lethality?
is the standard way of assessing the toxicity of any drug.
What about non-lethal neural and genetic damage?
"From our own work and from a review of the literature, we believe that pure LSD ingested in moderate doses does not damage chromosones in vivo, does not cause detectable genetic damage, and is not a tetrogen or a carcinogen in man."
~ LSD and Genetic Damage
, 1971. Dishotsky et al.
"The available data suggest that pure LSD does not cause chromosomal abnormalities, spontaneous abortions, or congenital malformations."
~ Drugs in Pregnancy and Lactation
, 2008. Briggs et al.
What about psychological trauma?
Teaching tantra or Madhyamaka to the uninitiated can result in psychological trauma. So can watching The Exorcist. Psychology is fragile.
Memory loss? Social problems? etc...
Both of these are incredibly weak claims, obviously not true in all cases (in today's world taking all sorts of drugs clearly improves sociability in many cases, whether MDMA on a night out or caffeine and nicotine in the workplace).
Memory loss is mainly, perhaps only, directly liked to cannabis - which also has beneficial implications in the treatment of chronic pain, OCD, Tourettes, glaucoma, AIDS, multiple sclerosis, naseau, asthma, epilepsy, depression, anxiety, addiction withdrawal, post-polio syndrome, Alzheimers etc.
Is this a good trade?
What about one instance where I saw a guy (on LSD) jump into a bonfire because he thought that he was somehow immune to being burnt?
It probably wasn't LSD. At the very least, it probably wasn't solely LSD. Mixing up prescriptions can kill you, there is no reason why mixing other drugs wouldn't.
People don't actually think they can fly, turn into a glass of orange juice etc. Part of the medical definition of a psychedelic and hallucinogenic drug is that they leave the intellect mostly in tact, or occasionally increased in capacity. This is the case with classical psychedelics, like LSD etc., and their analogues.
Datura, Ketamine, GBH, PCP, Ibogaine and similar are deliriants and/or dissociatives, not psychedelics proper. Unlike pure psychedelics, they produce "true" hallucinations, that is, fantasies indistinguishable from reality, with only some (or none) of the reputed effects of classic psychedelics.
So if your man was tripping, it was almost certainly on one of these.
Doesn't this make the ingestion of psychoactive substances dangerous?
Anything is dangerous to the unitiated and unprepared.
Again, I am not talking about all psychoactives, such as cocaine and PCP, which are not psychedelics (but narcotics and dissassociatives, respectively).
Obviously, ingesting a load of crack will be dangerous. However, frankly, unless some prior condition is relevant such as schizophrenia, ingesting most psychedelics will not be, since these substances are not just non-toxic, but utterly non-toxic.
How many people do you know that have done this sort of shit as a consequence of meditative experiences?
How many of your friends have died as a consequence of meditative experiences? Gone insane?Meditation isn't all peace and love you know.
I am sure you know that correlation does not equal causation.
Considering that there has never been a single reported instance of someone dying as a direct result of, say, LSD or DMT, nor has there been a single reported case of psychosis in an individual who was indisputedly not already genetically or historically predisposed to mental illness, there is absolutely no basis for these kinds of claims.
Certainly, if you are suicidal or depressed, you should not do drugs.
I didn't say anything about physical dependency. But it seems you consider it more important than psychological or social dependency
Being psychologically addicted to plastic surgery, or shopping, or video games is not the same as being physically addicted to heroin or methamphetamine. People don't sell their bodies on the streets so that they can buy the next Call of Duty or whatever.
The key difference is that psychological addiction is always symptomatic of something else. Whereas physical addiction is not necessarily.
According to your logic I would not level criticism towards the actions of a rapist because they are trying to intergrate...
Is the analogy comparing psychedelic users to rapists one often used in counseling?
A better analogy to this logic would be assuming a rapist commited a rape because he has a mustache. People kill themselves and go crazy and so on all the time. Sometimes they used psychedelics, and sometimes it contributed indirectly, but never is it the singular cause.
They may be aids with correct guidance but if I want to get correct guidance re meditative experiences I will ask for meditative practices from a lama not psychoactives/psychedelics from a drug dealer.
Fair enough, but that doesn't mean we should demonise or stereotype those who do.
Naturally, both the curious and the thorough will examine all options in their search for truth. Not everyone is capable of faith without direct experience, and whether we like it or not, whether we condone it or not, that is what some of these substances do. Guns can kill people, I don't like that they do this, but they do. Some
psychedelics, under the right conditions, can induce a state of mind which is -the- ideal state of mind, and what Buddha actually means, what every religion has a word for, albeit temporarily. You may not like this, I am perplexed by it, but neither your approval nor my credulity actually changes the fact that this is what they do, according to everyone who has ever studied them directly and properly in either a subjective or objective setting.
"It is not a matter of its being similar to mystical experience; it is mystical experience."
Sorry dude, but from my extensive intellectual and personal experience Dr. Stace is full of shit.
That would be Walter Terence Stace, Professor Emeritus of Princeton University, world renowned religious and moral philosopher, educator etc.
Note that your extensive intellectual and personal experience is based on not actually taking any of these substances yourself.
How much authority do you think such an opinion should hold?